The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of adjustment or set-off of maintenance amount awarded in previous proceedings under different statutes, as highlighted in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 10.11.2022, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.26 of 2021, Smt. Hemlata and another vs. Anil Kumar Arya, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal (for short, “the case”). By which, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.22,000/- (Rs.13,000/- to the respondent no.1, his wife and Rs.9,000/- to the respondent no.2, his son) per month as maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows. The respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code, seeking maintenance from the revisionist, which is the basis of the case. It has been the case of the respondent no.1 that she and the revisionist were married on 17.04.2017. But, after marriage, her in-laws were not happy with her and, therefore, she was harassed and tortured. She was blessed with a child, but the things did not change and finally, in order to save her life, she had left her matrimonial house on 01.03.2020. Her in-laws did lodge a missing report of her at a police station. Thereafter, the revisionist did not take care of her. She is not able to maintain herself whereas, the revisionist is a Lecturer in a Government Inter College and earns Rs.90,000/- per month.

4. The application was objected to by the revisionist. According to him, the respondent no.1 was never harassed and tortured at her in-laws’ house. It is the case of the revisionist that after the birth of his son on 19.09.2018, the behaviour of respondent no.1 suddenly changed; she became cruel and aggressive; she was not caring for anyone; she would leave her matrimonial house for longer durations so as to stay at her parents’ house; on 01.03.2020, the respondent no.1 had left her matrimonial house without informing anyone, therefore, a missing report was lodged.

5. Parties adduced the evidence in the case. On behalf of the respondent no.1, two witnesses, she herself and her father Prem Lal were examined. On behalf of the revisionist, he himself was examined.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is already paying Rs.8,000/- (Rs.5,000/-, to the respondent no.1, his wife and Rs.3,000/-, to respondent no.2, his son) per month in a proceeding under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”) and in addition to it, Rs.22,000/- has been awarded to the respondents, which is not as per the law in view of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is already paying maintenance under the provisions of the Act, which could have been adjusted or set off in any order of maintenance that was to be passed in the proceedings, but, it was not done. Reference has been made to para 128.1 of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra) and Sudeep Chaudhary vs. Radha Chaudhary, (1997) 11 SCC 286. In the case of Rajnesh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-

“128.1. (i) Where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding(s), while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding.”

7. In the case of Sudeep Chaudhary (supra), the wife had already been receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. Subsequently, in another proceedings under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, she was awarded maintenance. Under that factual situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed a sum that may be paid by the husband to the wife under both the provisions.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would also submit that the case of the respondent no.1 i